REMOVAL OF CAUSES. 97. In order to secure the ends for which the grant of judicial power to the federal system of courts was made by the constitution, provision has been made, by statute, for the removal of many kinds of actions from the state courts in which they were begun into the federal courts, for trial and decision, subject to certain conditions and limitations. It is competent for congress to authorize the removal to the federal courts of all classes of cases to which the federal judicial power of the United States, as defined by the constitution, extends, and to give them jurisdiction of the cases so removed; and it is no objection that a case authorized to be so removed is not one of which, under any act of congress, the federal courts would have had orig inal jurisdiction.153 Many acts of congress have been passed at different times on the subject of the removal of causes. But they were almost all repealed or superseded by the act of August 13, 1888,1 ,154 which was designed to stand as the sole general law on the subject of removals, and must be looked to as furnishing the whole system in that regard, except in a few peculiar cases to be presently mentioned. This statute provides that any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, arising under the constitution or laws. of the United States, or treaties, in which the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000, and which is instituted in a state court, may be removed by the defendant to the proper circuit court of the United States. But if the suit, without involving a federal question, is between citizens of different states, or citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or between citizens of a state and aliens, it may be removed by the defendant, provided he is not a resident of the state where the suit is brought. If there is a separable controversy in any such suit, which is wholly between citizens of different states and can be fully determined as between them, then the suit may be removed on the application of either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such contro versy. Further, if the action is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought and a non-resident defendant, the latter may remove the case to the federal court if he can show that, in consequence of prejudice or local influence, he will not be able to obtain justice in the courts of the state. It will be observed that the plaintiff cannot remove the suit in any event. In addition to this statute there are some earlier acts still remaining in force. Thus, section 641 of the Revised Statutes provides for the more effectual operation of the civil rights acts of congress by authorizing the removal to the federal courts of civil and criminal cases against any person who is denied, or cannot enforce, in the state courts, any rights secured to him by those laws.155 Another section provides for the removal of indictments against revenue officers for alleged crimes against the state, where it appears that a federal question or a claim to a federal right is raised in the case and must be decided therein.156 Another act provides for the removal of a personal action brought in any state court by an alien against a civil officer of the United States, being a non-resident of the state where the suit is brought; 157 and another for the removal of causes where one party claims lands in dispute under a grant from another state than that in which the suit is brought.158 The right to remove a cause from a state court to a federal court is exclusively statutory, and hence the case shown by the petition must come clearly within the statute, or the federal court will not 155 Under this act it was held that a negro, prosecuted in a state court, could not remove the case merely because there was such a local prejudice against his race and color as to deprive him of the benefit of a fair trial. Texas v. Gaines, 2 Woods, 342, Fed. Cas. No. 13,847. Rev. St. § 640, provided that suits against certain federal corporations might be removed to the federal courts, upon a verified petition "stating that such defendant has a defense arising under or by virtue of the constitution or of any treaty or law of the United States." It was held under this act, that the mere fact that the corporation was organized under a law of the United States was sufficient to secure a removal. Turton v. Union Pac. R. Co., 3 Dill. 366, Fed. Cas. No. 14,273. But this law was expressly repealed by section 6 of the act of August 13, 1888. 156 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257. 157 Rev. St. § 644. 158 Rev. St. § 647. take jurisdiction.159 erly removable, and whether the proper steps to effect a removal have been duly taken, are questions for the federal court to determine.160 Whether or not the case is one which is prop When the ground of removal is diverse citizenship, and there are several plaintiffs or defendants, all the parties must possess the requisite diversity of citizenship. That is, a removal will not be in order if any one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of the same state with any one of the defendants.161 Corporations are within the removal acts, and they are presumed to be citizens of the state which chartered them.162 So also, for the purpose of removing causes, public and municipal corporations are citizens of the state by which they were created.10 163 Cases "arising under the constitution and laws of the United States" present the same class of federal questions as those of which the federal courts are given original jurisdiction by the terms of the constitution. For example, a United States marshal, being sued in trespass for the seizure of property under an attachment, and defending upon the ground that the property seized belonged to the defendant in the attachment, may remove the case to the federal court, for his act was done in executing the laws of the United States.164 As to the nature of suits removable, it may be remarked that the language of the statutes is wide enough to include every sort of judicial proceeding in the nature of an action at law or suit in equity, whether founded on contract, tort, or otherwise. Thus, proceedings for the appropriation of private property for public use, under the power of eminent domain, are removable actions, if the requisite diversity of citizenship exists.165 159 Insurance Co. v. Pechner, 95 U. S. 183; Gold Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199. 160 Osgood v. Chicago, D. & V. R. Co., 6 Biss. 330, Fed. Cas. No. 10,604. 161 Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267; Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 336; Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457. 162 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Maquillan, 3 Dill. 379, Fed Cas. No. 4,668. 163 Barclay v. Levee Com'rs, 1 Woods, 254, Fed. Cas. No. 977. 164 Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628, 11 Sup. Ct. 677; Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 U. S. 266, 11 Sup. Ct. 565. 165 Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Patterson v. Boom Co., 3 Dill. 465, In regard to the stage of the cause at which the removal must be applied for, the act of 1888 provides, in respect to all removals except those under the prejudice and local influence clause, that the application must be made "at the time or any time before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court in which such suit is brought to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff." Where the ground of removability is prejudice or local influence, it directs that the application be made "at any time before the trial of the cause.” 166 It is not permissible for the states to deny the right of removal in cases where it is granted by congress, nor to put any restrictions or limitations upon it. Thus where a state statute creates a right of action for damages for personal injuries under certain circumstances, an action, founded on the statute, between citizens of dif ferent states, may be brought in a federal court, or removed thereto, notwithstanding the statute assumes to limit the remedy to suits in the courts of the state.187 Nor is it competent for a state, by legislative enactment conferring upon its own courts exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings or suits involving the settlement and distribution of decedents' estates, to exclude the jurisdiction in such matters of the federal courts, where the constitutional requirement as to citizenship of the parties is met.168 And on the same principle, state statutes permitting foreign corporations to do business within their limits only on condition that they will not remove suits against them into the federal courts, are void.169 Fed. Cas. No. 10,829; Warren v. Wisconsin Val. R. Co., 6 Biss. 425, Fed. Cas. No. 17,204. 166 See Hazard v. Railroad Co., 4 Biss. 453, Fed. Cas. No. 6,276. 187 Railway Co. v. Whitton's Adm'r, 13 Wall. 270. 168 Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96, 11 Sup. Ct. 468. 169 Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Doyle. 6 Biss. 461, Fed. Cas. No. 6,160; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535: Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 186, 7 Sup. Ct. 931. CHAPTER VIII. THE POWERS OF CONGRESS. 98. Constitution of Congress. 99-100. Organization and Government of Congress. CONSTITUTION OF CONGRESS. 98. All legislative powers granted to the United States by the constitution are vested in a congress, which consists of two co-ordinate branches, viz. vote. (a) The senate. (b) The house of representatives. The senate is composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, and each senator has one The senate is arranged in three classes, the term of one of such classes expiring every second year; so that at every change in the house of representatives, one-third of the senate also changes. If vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise during the recess of the legislature of the state, the governor may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and he must, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. The VicePresident of the United States is the president of the senate, but he has no vote except in the case of a tie. The first article of the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and that the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. To be eligible |